| 1 |
Mike Auty <ikelos@g.o> said: |
| 2 |
> Forgive me, |
| 3 |
> I'm a little new at this and I really don't want to get involved, but |
| 4 |
> since my inbox has seen nothing but this for the past day or two, I'm |
| 5 |
> going to ask a few questions I'm interested in the answers to... |
| 6 |
> First and foremost is, will adding this to the tree be used for |
| 7 |
> function creep, whereby the next request to add to/alter the portage |
| 8 |
> tree is backed up by "Well, the profile change was already added to the |
| 9 |
> tree"? I wouldn't want a precedent like this set without the council |
| 10 |
> reviewing it. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I really don't see much of an issue of feature creep. Gentoo/ALT |
| 13 |
already has a profile. It isn't like there are changes to the actual |
| 14 |
ebuilds themselves. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> Thirdly has anything like this ever happened to Debian or the Sourcery |
| 17 |
> group? If so how did they cope with it, and if not, how have they |
| 18 |
> avoided it? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
SMGL has voting and things get done. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> As you may have guessed I'm of the, "You can do the same thing with an |
| 23 |
> overlay, so why must it be in the tree". I am however willing to wait |
| 24 |
> and see what the council says, why can't the changes to the tree wait |
| 25 |
> until then, what is so urgent? I'm especially intrigued since all this |
| 26 |
> is simply to no longer require portage as a dependency of system. Can't |
| 27 |
> paludis peacefully co-exist with a portage installation for a little |
| 28 |
> longer, until it's mature? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
The question is when is it mature? I've tried it and Paludis does |
| 31 |
work. There will always be bugs and feature requests. Its part of |
| 32 |
the development process. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Ryan Phillips |
Archives